GAO United States General Accounting Office June 2001 NATIONAL SAVING Answers to Key Questions GAO-01-591SP
Contents Preface 5 Summary of Major Sections Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security Section 2 National Saving Overview Section 3 National Saving and the Economy 9 Personal Saving and Retirement Security 9 National Saving Overview 11 National Saving and the Economy 12 National Saving and the Government 13 18 Q1.1. What is the Personal Saving Rate and What Does it Mean? 18 Q1.2. Why Measure Personal Saving? 20 Q1.3. How Has the Personal Saving Rate Changed Over Time? 21 Q1.4. Why Do People Save? 22 Q1.5. Why Has the Personal Saving Rate Declined? 25 Q1.6. What Is the Relationship Between Personal Saving and Wealth? 27 Q1.7. If Household Wealth Has Increased, Does It Matter if the Personal Saving Rate Has Declined? 31 Q1.8. How Do Social Security and Personal Saving Compare as Sources of Retirement Income? 34 Q1.9. What Are the Implications of a Growing Elderly Population for Retirement Security? 39 47 Q2.1. What Is National Saving and How Is It Measured? 47 Q2.2. How Has U.S. National Saving Changed Over Time Both Overall and by Component? 49 Q2.3. How Does U.S. National Saving Compare to Other Major Industrialized Nations? 53 Q2.4. What Are Other Ways of Defining Saving and Investment? 55 58 Q3.1. How Does National Saving Contribute to Investment and Ultimately Economic Growth? 58 Q3.2. Has the Relatively Low National Saving Rate Affected Investment and Economic Growth? What Factors Have Fostered Economic Growth in Recent Years? 62 Q3.3. To What Extent Has the United States Supplemented Its Saving and Investment by Borrowing Saving From Abroad? How Does Such Borrowing Affect the Economy? 65 Q3.4. What Is the Current Long-Term Economic Outlook for Page 1
Contents U.S. National Saving and Investment? How Would the Long-Term Economic Outlook Change With Higher Levels of National Saving? 70 Section 4 National Saving and the Government Section 5 National Saving and Current Policy Issues 77 Q4.1. How Has Federal Fiscal Policy Affected U.S. National Saving? 77 Q4.2. Why Do Government and Private Saving Tend to Move in Opposite Directions? 81 Q4.3. What Is the Long-Term Outlook for Federal Government Saving/Dissaving? 82 Q4.4. How Does Saving Affect Future Budgetary Flexibility? 87 Q4.5. What are the Implications of Current Fiscal Policy Choices for Future Living Standards? 90 Q4.6. How Does Government Investment Affect National Saving and Economic Growth? 93 Q4.7. What Policies of the Federal Government Have Been Aimed at Encouraging Nonfederal Saving and Investment? 95 Q4.8. Given That Experts Disagree About Whether Retirement Saving Tax Incentives Are Effective In Increasing Personal Saving Overall, How Do These Tax Incentives Affect National Saving? 99 Q4.9. What Is the Federal Government Doing to Educate the Public About Why Saving Matters? 104 Q4.10. How Would Social Security Reform Affect National Saving? 106 Q4.11. How Would Establishing Individual Accounts Affect National Saving? 112 Q4.12. How Would Medicare Reform Affect National Saving? 114 119 Q5.1. What Are Key Issues in Evaluating National Saving? 119 Appendixes Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodolog 122 Appendix II: The Economic Model and Key Assumptions 127 Appendix III: Glossary 135 Appendix IV: Bibliography 142 Appendix V: Related GAO Products 153 Tables Table 4.1:Selected Federal Income Tax Provisions That Influence Personal Saving 97 Page 2
Contents Table 4.2:Change in Government and National Saving Resulting From a $4,000 Tax-Deductible IRA Contribution Under Alternative Personal Saving Assumptions 100 Table II.1:Key Assumptions of the Economic Model 132 Figure S.1:Personal Saving Rate (1960 2000) 10 Figure S.2:Net National Saving as a Share of GDP (1960 2000) 12 Figure 1.1:Personal Saving Rate (1960 2000) 22 Figure 1.2:Comparison of the Personal Saving Rate and the Wealth-Income Ratio (1960 2000) 28 Figure 1.3:Family Net Worth by Income Level in 1998 33 Figure 1.4:Share of Elderly Households Income by Source of Income, 1998 35 Figure 1.5:Pensions, Income from Accumulated Assets, and Earnings Determine Who Had Highest Retirement Incomes, 1998 37 Figure 1.6:Aged Population Nearly Doubles From Today as a Share of Total U.S. Population (1960 2075) 40 Figure 1.7:Relatively Fewer Workers Will Support More Retirees (1960 2075) 41 Figure 1.8:Social Security Trust Fund Faces Insolvency in 2038 (2000 2050) 42 Figure 1.9:Medicare s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund Faces Insolvency in 2029 (2000 2050) 44 Figure 1.10:Social Security and Medicare HI Cost and Income as a Percentage of Taxable Payroll (2000 2075) 45 Figure 2.1:Gross National Saving as a Share of GDP (1960 2000) 50 Figure 2.2:Composition of Net National Saving (1960 2000) 51 Figure 2.3:International Trends in Gross National Saving (1960 1997) 54 Figure 3.1:Overview of Saving, Investment, Output, and Income Flows 59 Figure 3.2:National Saving, Domestic Investment, and Net Foreign Investment (1960 2000) 66 Figure 3.3:Net U.S. Holdings of Foreign Assets and Net Income From Abroad (1977 1999) 68 Figure 3.4:Gross National Saving as a Share of GDP Under the Save the Social Security Surpluses Simulation (1990 2075) 72 Figure 3.5:GDP Per Capita Under Alternative Gross National Saving Rates (2000 2075) 73 Figure 4.1:The Effect of Federal Surpluses and Deficits on Net National Saving (1990 2000) 80 Figure 4.2:Unified Surpluses and Deficits as a Share of GDP Under Alternative Fiscal Policy Simulations (2000 2075) 86 Page 3
Contents Figure 4.3:Composition of Federal Spending as a Share of GDP Under the Save the Social Security Surpluses Simulation 89 Figure 4.4:GDP Per Capita Under Alternative Fiscal Policy Simulations (1960 2075) 91 Figure 4.5:Medicare HI and SMI Spending as a Share of GDP (2000 2075) 116 Text Box 2.1: Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product 48 Text Box 4.1: How do the NIPA and federal unified budget concepts of federal surpluses and deficits differ? 78 Text Box 4.2: Government Saving When Reducing Publicly Held Federal Debt is Not an Option 84 Text Box 4.3: Individual Development Accounts for Low-Income Savers 102 Abbreviations BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CBO Congressional Budget Office FFA Flow of Funds Accounts GDP Gross domestic product GNP Gross national product HI Hospital Insurance IRA Individual Retirement Account NIPA National Income and Product Accounts OASDI Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development R&D Research and development SAVER Savings are Vital for Everyone's Retirement Act of 1997 SMI Supplementary Medical Insurance Page 4
Preface The term saving is used both when people discuss their own finances and when policymakers and economists discuss national saving. For people and for the nation, saving means forgoing consumption today so they can enjoy a better standard of living in the future. National saving the portion of a nation s current income not consumed is the sum of saving by households, businesses, and all levels of government. National saving represents resources available for investment to replace old factories and equipment and to buy more and better capital goods. Higher saving and investment in a nation s capital stock contribute to increased productivity and stronger economic growth over the long term. Saving today increases a nation s capacity to produce goods and services in the future and, therefore, helps to increase the standard of living for future generations. Since the 1970s, combined saving by households and business has declined. For much of that time, the federal government did not contribute to saving; instead it was a borrower, its deficits absorbing a share of the saving pool available for investment. For the nation as a whole, saving has rebounded somewhat from its low point in the early 1990s but remains relatively low by U.S. historical standards. In fiscal year 1998, the federal government began to contribute to the pool of saving by running its first surplus since 1969. Federal budget surpluses now are projected for at least the next decade. But even with the advent of federal government saving in the late 1990s, national saving available for new investment remains relatively low, in large part because personal saving has dramatically declined. The U.S. has been able to invest more than it saves by borrowing from abroad, but economists question whether this is a viable strategy for the long term. Personal saving plays a dual role, ensuring both individuals retirement security and the nation s economic security. While Social Security provides a foundation for retirement income, saving through pensions and by individuals on their own behalf contribute substantially to retirement income. Even as more people are accumulating balances through employer-sponsored 401(k) saving plans and individual retirement accounts, personal saving which does not reflect gains on existing assets has declined. The personal saving rate has plunged, with American households spending virtually all of their current income. Although aggregate household wealth has risen in part as a result of the stock market boom over the 1990s, many individual households have accumulated little, if any, wealth. America faces a demographic tidal wave that poses significant challenges for individuals retirement security and our economy as a whole. More Page 5
Preface people are living longer in retirement, and there will be relatively fewer workers supporting each retiree in the future. Without meaningful reform, the Social Security and Medicare programs face long-term financing problems. Although public attention usually focuses on the dates by which the trust funds are projected to become insolvent, the effects associated with financing cash deficits for these programs will be felt sooner as the baby boom generation begins to retire. As the population ages, spending for Social Security and federal health programs will leave increasingly less room for spending on other national priorities. Increasing national saving is an important way to bolster retirement security for current workers and to allow future workers to more easily bear the costs of financing federal retirement and health programs while maintaining their standard of living. As we have reported in the past, the surest way for the federal government to affect national saving is through federal fiscal policy, particularly in what it chooses to do with the budget surpluses projected over the next decade. Policymakers appear to have agreed to save the Social Security surpluses, and the fiscal policy debate has centered on what to do with the balance of the anticipated surpluses. To the extent that they are used to reduce federal debt held by the public, surpluses represent an opportunity to increase national saving. In addition, how surpluses are used has long-term implications for future economic growth. Policy debates surrounding Social Security and Medicare reform also have implications for all levels of saving government, personal, and, ultimately, national. This report is designed to present information about national saving as measured in the National Income and Product Accounts and its implications for economic growth and retirement security in a concise and easily understandable manner. In general, this report is based on widely accepted economic principles, and we identify those areas where many economists do not agree. Although many excellent studies and books have been written on national saving and long-term economic growth, these discussions tend to be complex and technical. Also, most discussion of the decline in personal saving focuses on the adequacy of individuals retirement saving rather than on the significance of personal saving for the economy as a whole. For example, one point that is sometimes overlooked is that low personal saving has consequences for U.S. reliance on foreign borrowing, long-term economic growth, and standards of living for future generations. Page 6
Preface This report addresses the following questions: (1) What is personal saving, how is it related to national saving, and what are the implications of low personal saving for Americans retirement security? (2) What is national saving and how does current saving in the United States compare to historical trends and saving in other countries? (3) How does national saving affect the economy and how would higher saving affect the longterm outlook? (4) How does federal fiscal policy affect national saving, what federal policies have been aimed at increasing private saving, and how would Social Security and Medicare reform affect national saving? And, (5) what are key issues in evaluating national saving? For a quick overview of the topics discussed in this report, see the summary section. For easy access to definitions of key terms, we include a glossary at the end of this report. Terms contained in the glossary appear in bold type in the text the first time they are used in the major sections. For readers who are interested in more detailed information on the topics covered here, we also include a bibliography. This report was prepared under the direction of Paul L. Posner, Managing Director of Federal Budget Analysis, and Susan J. Irving, Director of Federal Budget Analysis, who may be reached at (202) 512-9573 if there are any questions. Paul L. Posner Managing Director Federal Budget Analysis Strategic Issues Susan J. Irving Director Federal Budget Analysis Strategic Issues Page 7
Page 8
Summary of Major Sections Personal Saving and Retirement Security The personal saving rate as measured in the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) reflects how much households in aggregate are saving from their current disposable income. In evaluating personal saving, it is important to distinguish between saving as a way for an individual household to finance future consumption and saving as a way to finance the nation s capital formation. Strange as it may seem to the typical household, capital gains on its existing assets do not contribute to saving as measured in NIPA. That is because capital gains reflect a revaluation of the nation s existing capital stock and do not provide resources for financing investment that adds to the capital stock. Whereas employer contributions to pension funds as well as pension funds interest and dividend income are part of personal income and contribute to personal saving, increases in the market value of assets held by pension funds, for example, are not counted as personal income and saving. Although an individual household can tap its wealth by selling assets to finance consumption or accumulate other assets, the sale of an existing asset merely transfers ownership; it does not generate new economic output. The personal saving rate has largely declined since the 1980s, plummeting in recent years to levels not seen since the Great Depression, as shown in figure S.1. A low personal saving rate raises questions about whether households have adequate resources to sustain their rate of spending. A negative saving rate means that, in aggregate, households are spending more than their current income by drawing down past saving, selling existing assets, or borrowing. Page 9
Summary of Major Sections Figure S.1: Personal Saving Rate (1960 2000) Percent of disposable personal income 12 10 8 6 4 2 0-2 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. Economists use several theories to explain what motivates people to save. Despite a great deal of study, economists have found no single reason that convincingly explains the decline in the personal saving rate. One possible explanation is that surging household wealth in recent years contributed to the virtual disappearance of personal saving. Since the mid 1990s, aggregate household wealth has swelled relative to disposable personal income, largely due to increases in the market value of households existing assets (see figure 1.2). Yet, despite the stock market boom of the 1990s, many households have accumulated little, if any, wealth (see figure 1.3), and half of American households did not own stocks as of 1998. While Social Security provides a foundation for retirement income, Social Security benefits replace only about 40 percent of pre-retirement income for the average worker. As a result, Social Security benefits must be supplemented by private pensions, accumulated assets, or other resources in order for individuals to maintain a reasonable standard of living in retirement compared to their final working years. Pensions, income from accumulated assets, and earnings from continued employment largely determine which households will have the highest retirement income (see figures 1.4 and 1.5). Pensions are not a universal source of retirement income, and more than half of those working in 1998 lacked a pension plan. While most families say they recognize the need to save for retirement, Page 10
Summary of Major Sections fewer than half of those surveyed in early 2001 had tried to calculate how much they need to save. Over the next 75 years, the elderly population will nearly double as a share of the total U.S. population (see figure 1.6). As more people live longer, there will be relatively fewer workers supporting each retiree unless retirement patterns change. While today there are 3.4 workers for each Social Security beneficiary, by 2030, there will be only about 2 workers paying taxes to support each beneficiary (see figure 1.7). Both Social Security and Medicare face long-term financing problems, and the Social Security and Medicare s Hospital Insurance trust funds eventually will be exhausted as the baby boomers draw their benefits (see figures 1.8 and 1.9). Absent reform, Social Security and Medicare costs would constitute a substantial drain on the earnings of future workers (see figure 1.10). Anticipating potential benefit cuts, people could choose to save more now, work longer to delay retirement, or experience a lower standard of living in retirement. With an aging population and a slowly growing workforce, saving more today and increasing the nation s future economic capacity is critical to ensuring retirement security in the 21st century. National Saving Overview In the NIPA, national saving is the sum of saving by households, businesses, and all levels of government. Gross national saving which reflects resources available both to replace old, worn out capital goods and to expand the capital stock has rebounded as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) from its low in the 1990s but remains below the level of the 1960s (see figure 2.1). Depreciation as a share of GDP has increased slightly over the past 4 decades, and net national saving which excludes depreciation remains well below the 1960s average, as shown in figure S.2. Through much of the 1980s and early 1990s, federal deficits absorbed funds saved by households and businesses and reduced overall national saving available to finance private investment (see figure 2.2). Even as federal surpluses have contributed to national saving in recent years, personal saving has steadily declined as a share of GDP, and personal dissaving in 2000 absorbed resources that otherwise would have been available for investment. Although gross national saving in 2000 was low by U.S. historical standards, U.S. gross national saving has generally been lower than other major industrialized countries over the past 4 decades (see figure 2.3). Page 11
Summary of Major Sections Figure S.2: Net National Saving as a Share of GDP (1960 2000) Percent of GDP 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: GAO analysis of NIPA data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. National saving represents resources available for investment in the nation s stock of capital goods, such as plant, equipment, and housing. The nation s human capital and knowledge forms of intangible capital are not part of the NIPA definitions of saving and investment. Also, NIPA focuses on the incomes arising from current production of goods and services and, thus, does not count revaluation of existing assets in national saving. Changes in the market value of existing tangible and financial assets, such as land and stocks, reflect expectations about the productive potential of the underlying capital, but fluctuations in asset values may not represent real, permanent changes in the nation s productive capacity. National Saving and the Economy National saving together with borrowing from abroad provides the resources for investment that can boost productivity and lead to higher economic growth and future living standards (see figure 3.1). Investment in new capital is an important way to raise the productivity of the slowly growing workforce as the population ages. Greater economic growth from saving more now would make it easier for future workers to achieve a rising standard of living for themselves while also paying for the government s commitments to the elderly. Economic growth also depends on education to enhance the knowledge and skills of the nation s work Page 12
Summary of Major Sections force the nation s human capital as well as research and development to spur technological advances. Even though national saving remains relatively low by U.S. historical standards, economic growth in recent years has been high because more and better investments were made. Each dollar saved bought more investment goods, and a greater share of saving was invested in highly productive information technology. Also, the United States was able to invest more than it saved by borrowing from abroad (see figure 3.2). Persistent U.S. current account deficits have translated into a rising level of indebtedness to other countries, i.e., net U.S. holdings of foreign assets (see figure 3.3). Many other nations currently financing investment in the United States also will face aging populations and declining national saving, so relying on foreign savers to finance a large share of U.S. domestic investment is not a viable strategy for the long run. Current saving and investment decisions have profound implications for the nation s level of well-being in the future. Our simulations using a longterm economic growth model show that, even assuming the United States could maintain national saving constant at its 2000 share of GDP, future incomes would fall short of the rise in living standards enjoyed by prior generations whose income generally doubled every 35 years (see figures 3.4 and 3.5). Saving more would improve the nation s long-term economic outlook, but this requires consuming less now. National Saving and the Government Federal fiscal policy affects the amount of federal government saving and this in turn directly affects national saving. From the 1970s through the mid 1990s, federal deficits absorbed a large share of private saving and reduced the amount of national saving available for investment (see figure 4.1). Borrowing to finance these deficits added to the federal debt held by the public. In recent years, federal surpluses added to national saving and increased funds available for investment. So far, the federal government has used surplus funds to reduce its debt held by the public. Accumulating nonfederal financial assets, such as stocks, could be another way that government saving could translate into resources available for investment, but this idea is controversial. An additional dollar of government saving and debt reduction does not automatically increase national saving and investment by a dollar because changes in saving by households and businesses will tend to offset some of the change in government saving. Page 13
Summary of Major Sections While attention has focused on budget surpluses projected over the next decade, the federal budget will increasingly be driven by one certainty the population is aging and there will be fewer workers supporting each retiree. In our simulations, saving only the Social Security surpluses will not be sufficient to accommodate both the projected growth in Social Security and health entitlements as well as other important national priorities in the long term (see figure 4.2). Absent program changes, saving the Social Security surpluses and even the Medicare surpluses is not enough to ensure retirement security for the aging population without placing a heavy burden on future generations. Social Security and health spending alone eventually would exceed total federal revenue and squeeze out most or all other spending (see figure 4.3). Even if the entire unified surplus were saved, our simulations show that the rise in living standards measured in terms of GDP per capita would fall short of the rise enjoyed by prior generations whose income generally doubled every 35 years (see figure 4.4). Reforming retirement and health entitlement programs is critical to putting the federal budget on a more sustainable footing for the long term and to freeing up future resources for other competing needs. Although increasing government saving is the most direct way for the federal government to increase national saving, budget surpluses also could be used to finance federal investment intended to promote long-term economic growth or to encourage personal saving. Whereas unified budget surpluses increase national saving available for private investment, increasing federal spending on national infrastructure, if properly designed and administered, can be another way to increase the nation s capital stock. In addition, federal spending on education and research and development while not counting as investment in NIPA can, if properly designed and administered, promote the nation s long-term productivity and economic growth. The federal government also has sought to encourage personal saving both to enhance households financial security and to boost national saving. But, developing policies that have the desired effect is difficult. Tax incentives affect how people save for retirement but do not necessarily increase the overall level of personal saving. Even with preferential tax treatment for employer-sponsored retirement saving plans and individual retirement accounts, the personal saving rate has steadily declined. Economists disagree about whether tax incentives are effective in increasing the overall level of personal saving. The net effect of a tax incentive on national saving depends on whether the tax incentive induces enough additional saving by households to make up for the lower government saving resulting from the government s revenue loss. In recent Page 14
Summary of Major Sections years, policymakers have explored using government matching or creating new individual accounts to encourage Americans to save more. Congress found that a leading obstacle to expanding retirement saving has been that many Americans do not know how to save for retirement, let alone how much. The Department of Labor maintains an outreach program to raise public awareness about the advantages of saving and to help educate workers about how much they need to save for retirement. Other federal agencies also play a role in educating the public about saving. Individualized statements now sent annually by the Social Security Administration to most workers aged 25 and older provide important information for personal retirement planning, but knowing more about Social Security s financial status would help workers to understand how to view their personal benefit estimates. Restoring Social Security to sustainable solvency and increasing saving are intertwined national goals. Saving for the nation s retirement costs is analogous to an individual s retirement planning in that the sooner we increase saving, the greater our benefit from compounding growth. The way in which Social Security is reformed will influence both the magnitude and timing of any increase in national saving. The ultimate effect of Social Security reform on national saving depends on complex interactions between government saving and personal saving both through pension funds and by individuals on their own behalf. Various proposals would create new individual accounts as part of Social Security reform or in addition to Social Security. The extent to which individual accounts would affect national saving depends on how the accounts are funded, how the account program is structured, and how people adjust their own saving behavior in response to the new accounts. The Medicare program is fiscally burdensome in its current form, and Medicare spending (see figure 4.5) is expected to drive federal government dissaving over the long run. Given the aging of the U.S. population and the increasing cost of modern medical technology, it is inevitable that demands on the Medicare program will grow. The current Medicare program lacks incentives to control health care consumption, and the cost of health care decisions is not transparent to consumers. Although future Medicare costs are expected to consume a growing share of the federal budget and the economy, pressure is mounting to expand Medicare s benefit package to cover prescription drugs, which will add billions to Medicare program costs. In balancing health care spending with other societal priorities, it is important to distinguish between health care wants, which are virtually Page 15
Summary of Major Sections unlimited; needs, which should be defined and addressed; and overall affordability, which has a limit. Reducing federal Medicare spending would improve future levels of government saving, but the ultimate effect on national saving depends on how the private sector responds to the reductions. Key Issues In light of the virtual disappearance of personal saving, concerns about U.S. reliance on borrowing from abroad to finance domestic investment, and the looming fiscal pressures of an aging population, federal decisionmakers must consider how much of the anticipated budget surpluses to save, spend, or use for tax reductions. Economic growth will help society bear the burden of financing Social Security and Medicare, but it alone will not solve our long-term fiscal challenge. To participate in the debate over how to reform Social Security and Medicare, the public needs to understand the difficult choices the nation faces. Page 16
Page 17
Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security Section1 Q1.1. What is the Personal Saving Rate and What Does it Mean? A1.1. The personal saving rate is the most widely cited statistic about how much households save, but most people do not know what the rate measures or what it means. First, it is necessary to distinguish saving from savings. In everyday terms, saving means spending less than your income and savings are the assets accumulated over time. To better distinguish between these concepts in this report, the term saving means the money set aside from current income for future consumption i.e., how much of each period s income is saved rather than spent. The terms assets accumulated and wealth are used for the cumulative stock of resources built over time what people commonly think of as savings. The personal saving rate, as measured in the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), 1 reflects how much American households are setting aside from current income. Under NIPA, personal saving is what is left over from personal income after taxes and personal spending for goods and services. Disposable personal income is the income available for personal spending and saving after federal, state, and local taxes as well as Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes are paid. The NIPA personal saving rate is calculated as the ratio of personal saving to disposable personal income. To understand what the personal saving rate means, it is helpful to understand the NIPA definitions of persons, personal income, and personal spending. For NIPA purposes, persons include not only individuals but also nonprofit institutions primarily serving individuals, pension funds, and private trust funds. NIPA personal income includes wages and salaries; interest and dividend income; rental income; 2 proprietors income; government transfer payments, such as Social Security, veterans, and unemployment benefits; and employer contributions to pension plans as well as group health and life insurance plans. Contributions to traditional defined benefit pension plans and defined contribution plans such as 401(k) plans together with pension 1 The national income and product accounts (NIPA) are the comprehensive set of accounts that show the composition of production and the distribution of incomes earned in production. NIPA data reflect production in the United States as well as U.S. transactions with the rest of the world. NIPA data are prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce. For more information, see Eugene P. Seskin and Robert P. Parker, A Guide to the NIPA s, Survey of Current Business, Vol. 78, No. 3 (March 1998), pp. 26 68. 2 NIPA treats the net rental value on owner-occupied housing as personal income. Page 18
Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security funds interest and dividend income represent an important component of NIPA personal income and saving. 3 Benefits paid by pension plans are not a component of NIPA personal income, although pension benefits represent an important means for many retirees to finance consumption (see Q1.8). NIPA personal spending includes, for example, food, clothing, rent, utilities, and medical care; consumer interest payments; and consumer durables, such as cars and major appliances. 4 Strange as it may seem to the average household, changes in the value of existing assets, such as stocks, bonds, or real estate, do not contribute to NIPA personal income and saving. That is because capital gains reflect a revaluation of the nation s existing capital stock and do not provide resources for financing investment that adds to the capital stock. Under the current NIPA methodology, realized gains do not count as personal income, but any taxes paid on such gains reduce disposable personal income and thus personal saving. Although the NIPA personal saving rate is the measure most frequently cited by analysts and the media, an alternative macroeconomic measure of personal saving is available from the Federal Reserve s Flow of Funds Accounts (FFA). 5 Whereas NIPA measures saving as what is left over from personal income after taxes and personal spending, FFA measures saving as the net increase in households financial and tangible assets less the net increase in households liabilities. Both the NIPA and FFA measures count household purchases of houses as saving. The FFA personal saving rate also counts household purchases of consumer durables as saving and, thus, is somewhat higher than the NIPA personal saving rate. Both the NIPA and FFA macroeconomic measures focus on saving from the economy s current production and do not include changes in the market value of households existing portfolios. In this report, we use the NIPA measure of 3 A defined benefit pension plan generally provides benefits based on a specific formula linked to the worker s earnings and tenure. Typically, a defined benefit plan is funded completely by the employer, who bears the investment risk of such as arrangement. Under a defined contribution plan, a percentage of pay is contributed by the employer to an account for each worker, with the worker bearing the investment risk. The increasingly popular 401(k) plans also allow contributions by workers. 4 This refers to spending by persons in NIPA and not just by individuals. 5 The Flow of Funds Accounts (FFA) measure the acquisition of physical and financial assets throughout the U.S. economy and the sources of funds used to acquire the assets. For more information, see Guide to the Flow of Funds Accounts, Vol. 1, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2000). Page 19
Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security personal saving because it more closely represents the resources available from households for the nation s capital formation. For the economy as a whole, the personal saving rate provides a measure of how much households are saving compared to current disposable personal income. A positive saving rate means that American households in aggregate are saving. A low personal saving rate means that households in aggregate are spending virtually all of their current income. A negative personal saving rate means that, in aggregate, American households are spending more than their current income or dissaving. Given that the personal saving rate is an aggregate measure, some individuals might be saving a lot even while others are drawing down past saving, selling existing assets, or borrowing to finance their current consumption. Q1.2. Why Measure Personal Saving? A1.2. For the economy as a whole, personal saving can be a vital source of the nation s saving available to finance private and government investment. NIPA personal saving is widely recognized by economists as the key measure of the resources that households contribute to national saving. A low personal saving rate unless offset by relatively higher saving by businesses and/or government or by borrowing from abroad limits how much the nation can invest and so ultimately limits future economic growth. A low personal saving rate can raise questions about whether current generations are setting aside enough to sustain the nation s productive capacity, especially if the other components of national saving are not correspondingly higher. Some analysts are concerned that the demand for household consumption is in part fueling the U.S. trade deficit. Section 2 discusses the trend and the components of national saving, and section 3 explains how saving affects long-term economic growth and living standards. The personal saving rate also has implications for Americans ability to sustain their current rate of spending. Personal spending represents about two-thirds of the U.S. economy. A low personal saving rate raises questions about whether Americans have adequate resources to withstand a financial emergency such as unemployment in the event of an economic downturn. In addition, many policymakers and analysts have questioned whether American households are saving enough to ensure their retirement security. Having said this, it is important to recognize that macroeconomic measures such as the NIPA personal saving rate do not provide a complete picture of Page 20
Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security the finances of individual households. A household s capacity to consume depends on both its current income and its wealth. One way to measure households wealth is net worth, or the difference between households assets and their liabilities. 6 The change in households net worth is broader than the NIPA or FFA measures of personal saving and includes both the flow of saving from current income plus any increase (or decrease) in the market value of existing assets such as houses and stocks. For the economy as a whole, however, the change in households net worth due to revaluation of households existing assets does not represent resources available to invest in the nation s capital stock. 7 Q1.3. How Has the Personal Saving Rate Changed Over Time? A1.3. Figure 1.1 shows the personal saving rate expressed as a percentage of disposable personal income over the past 4 decades. The personal saving rate averaged 8.3 percent over the 1960s and increased to an average of 9.6 percent over the 1970s. Within each of those 2 decades, annual saving rates were relatively steady, although they ranged from a low of 7.2 in 1960 to a high of 10.7 percent in 1974. Over the 1980s, the personal saving rate was slightly lower than in the 1970s. After peaking at 10.9 percent in 1982, the rate generally declined over the 1980s, dropping as low as to 7.3 percent in 1987; for the decade, the rate averaged 9.1 percent. The personal saving rate rebounded from 1987 to 1992 when it reached 8.7 percent. Since then, the personal saving rate has steadily declined and averaged only 5.9 percent over the 1990s. In the late 1990s, the personal saving rate dropped below the postwar low of 4.7 percent in 1947. In 1999, the personal saving rate plunged to 2.2 percent an annual rate not seen since the Great Depression. As shown in figure 1.1, the personal saving rate in 2000 was estimated to be 0.1 percent. 8 With the personal saving rate around zero or negative, economists have questioned how to interpret the decline; see question 1.7. 6 Households aggregate net worth is available from the Flow of Funds Accounts balance sheet for the household sector. 7 For further discussion of whether revaluation of existing assets counts as saving, see questions 1.7 and 2.4. 8 The last time the personal saving rate was negative was in 1932 (-0.8 percent) and 1933 (-1.5 percent). Page 21
Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security Figure 1.1: Personal Saving Rate (1960 2000) Percent of disposable personal income 12 10 8 6 4 2 0-2 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. Q1.4. Why Do People Save? A1.4. Before trying to answer why people are saving less, let s start with the question of what motivates people to save. People save for a variety of reasons such as buying a house, taking a vacation, providing a college education for their children, or preparing for their own retirement. They may also save for general reasons such as for a rainy day or to leave money to their heirs. People with seemingly identical family and income situations may make different saving choices some may save a great deal while others save little, if anything. Economists and other analysts use several theories in analyzing how individuals and households decide how much of their current income to save for the future. The standard theory for explaining personal saving is the life-cycle model. 9 The basic hypothesis is that people save and accumulate assets to smooth out their consumption and standard of living over their lifetimes. 9 A complementary theory of personal saving is the permanent-income hypothesis. Generally, people save a greater share of income when their annual income is higher than their expected long-run permanent income and save a smaller share when their income is lower than the expected long-run level. Page 22
Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security Young people entering the workforce, anticipating that their incomes will increase over their careers, save little and may borrow to finance current spending. Workers in their peak earning years save to repay past borrowing and to accumulate assets for retirement. The life-cycle model predicts that saving is hump-shaped by age so that wealth accumulation peaks just before retirement. Upon leaving the workforce, the elderly run down their wealth or dissave. In saving for retirement, individuals theoretically take into account not only their expected retirement age and the number of years they expect to live in retirement but also project their expected income, real returns on assets accumulated, and inflation over their lifetime. Although providing for retirement is a powerful motive for saving, the life-cycle model in its simplest form cannot fully explain how people decide to save. Faced with the difficulty of reconciling the standard life-cycle model with available empirical data, economists have examined other motives that may help explain saving behavior. While some evidence supports each motive, economists do not have a unified theory that fully explains how people choose to save. 10 In general, the other major incentives or reasons why people save are categorized as follows: Precautionary saving motive. This is saving to protect against unexpected expenses or possible emergencies, such as unemployment or illness. In particular, individuals who face greater uncertainty about their income and those who are risk-averse may tend to save more for a rainy day. Precautionary saving may be over-and-above basic life-cycle saving for retirement. Some people may choose to save enough to maintain a buffer-stock or contingency reserve during their early working years and defer retirement saving until their 40s or 50s. 11 Bequest saving motive. This is saving beyond basic life-cycle saving for retirement. Some people may choose to save more in order to bequeath the accumulated wealth to future generations. The desire to leave a bequest may explain why the elderly do not fully deplete their wealth and some even continue to save during retirement. To some 10 For a comprehensive review of personal saving literature, see Martin Browning and Annamaria Lusardi, Household Saving: Micro Theories and Micro Facts, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4 (1996), pp. 1797-1855. 11 Christopher D. Carroll, Buffer-Stock Saving and the Life Cycle/Permanent Income Hypothesis, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. CXII, No. 1 (1997), pp. 1 56. Page 23
Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security extent, bequests may be unplanned and thus reflect unspent retirement and precautionary saving. Big ticket saving motive. This is relatively short-term saving to accommodate a mismatch between current income and expenses during the life-cycle. Some people save to pay for big-ticket items such as cars, other consumer durables, or vacations. Some must save in advance because they cannot borrow, while others may prefer to save and avoid borrowing. Another big ticket is the down payment to buy a home; households largely borrow to buy homes and later save by repaying their mortgages. Paying for postsecondary education is a big ticket above and beyond life-cycle saving for retirement. Given that people save for different purposes, increasing the rate of return on saving does not necessarily motivate people to save more. A higher rate of return has two opposing effects on personal saving. On the one hand, a higher rate of return may encourage people to save more because future spending becomes less costly relative to spending today the substitution effect. On the other hand, given a higher rate of return, people need to save less now to finance a given level of future consumption. This reduced incentive to save as real rates of return increase is called the income effect. 12 How people react to an increase in the rate of return depends not only on their preferences about spending today versus spending in the future but also on the real after-tax rate of return that is, the rate expected after taking into account inflation and taxes. 13 Not everyone behaves like a life-cycle saver. Many people plan over shorter horizons a few years or even paycheck-to-paycheck. Instead of trying to forecast lifetime income and economic conditions in the distant future, people may use simple rules of thumb, such as saving a fixed share of their income or avoiding debt. 14 Many people are target savers who aim for a fixed level of wealth or ratio of wealth to income in order to achieve 12 Textbooks in microeconomics discuss these effects in detail. For a brief summary of substitution and income effects, see N. Gregory Mankiw, Macroeconomics, 4th Edition (New York, N.Y.: Worth Publishers, 2000), pp. 446 447. 13 See section 4 for a discussion of federal tax incentives for personal saving. 14 People can save for retirement using rules of thumb, such as saving a fixed percentage of income in an employer-sponsored retirement saving plan or saving $2,000 each year in an individual retirement account (IRA). Page 24
Section 1 Personal Saving and Retirement Security specific goals such as retirement, college education, a new car, or a vacation. Once target savers reach their wealth target, they may feel no need to save more. Individuals may use mental accounts and even separate bank accounts to earmark the money saved for different uses. To ensure saving discipline, people may use contractual or automatic mechanisms, such as payroll deductions, to save. A mortgage is a key form of contractual saving in which the homeowner s commitment to repay the principal borrowed compels future saving. Even though economists have various theories to explain why people choose to save, some people do not save at all. 15 Low-income and even some moderate-income households may feel that they are unable to save. Others may be unwilling to save. Some people may be impatient and they may discount the future so heavily that retirement saving seems irrelevant compared to current spending. Q1.5. Why Has the Personal Saving Rate Declined? A1.5. No one is sure why the personal saving rate has declined. Despite a great deal of study, economists have found no single reason that convincingly explains the decline. Instead, research points to a combination of factors that influence the personal saving rate. These include but are not limited to demographics, government programs for the elderly, credit availability, and expectations about future income and wealth. 16 Demographics. Under the basic life-cycle model, one would expect that an increase in the elderly as a percentage of the total population would reduce the aggregate saving rate. However, empirical research has found that saving has declined across most age groups. There is no 15 For more information, see Annamaria Lusardi, Explaining Why So Many Households Do Not Save, Working Paper Series 00.1, Dartmouth College and The University of Chicago (January 2000); and Annamaria Lusardi, Jonathan Skinner, and Steven Venti, Saving Puzzles and Saving Policies in the United States, Working Paper No. 8237 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2001). 16 Martin Browning and Annamaria Lusardi, in Household Saving: Micro Theories and Micro Facts, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4 (1996), pp. 1797 1855, identified 11 possible explanations offered for the decline in personal saving. Jonathan Parker, in Spendthrift in America? On Two Decades of Decline in the U.S. Saving Rate, Working Paper No. 7238 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, July 1999), examined seven possible explanations for the decline. Page 25